Development Risk Is Not Just Bushfire and Flood: Understanding Planning Risk in NSW
- Plan BE
- Dec 15, 2025
- 3 min read
When people hear the phrase development risk, most immediately think of bushfire prone land, flood overlays, or coastal erosion. While natural hazards are absolutely part of the picture, they are only one piece of a much larger and more complex risk framework within the NSW planning system.
In practice, Councils assess development risk across a wide range of planning, strategic, environmental, and social factors. Many development applications fail or stall not because of a flood map or a bushfire assessment, but because broader planning risks were not identified early enough.
Understanding these risks before design begins is one of the most effective ways to improve approval outcomes and avoid costly redesigns, delays, or refusals.
What Development Risk Means in the NSW Planning System
Development risk refers to the likelihood that a proposal will encounter planning barriers that affect whether it can be approved, conditioned heavily, delayed, or refused altogether.
Under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, consent authorities are required to consider not only technical compliance, but also strategic intent, suitability of the site, likely impacts, and the public interest (NSW Government legislation).
This means risk is assessed holistically, not in isolation.
A development may be technically permissible and still carry a high planning risk if it conflicts with broader planning objectives or emerging policy directions.
The Types of Planning Risk That Are Often Overlooked
Natural hazard risk is the most visible, but it is rarely the most decisive on its own. Other forms of development risk regularly influence Council decisions.
Zoning and permissibility risk arises where land use definitions are unclear, additional consent requirements apply, or the proposal stretches the intent of the zone rather than aligning with it. Even where a use is technically permissible, Councils assess whether it is appropriate for that specific location within the zone.
Strategic planning risk occurs when a proposal conflicts with Council strategies, local housing or employment targets, structure plans, or State level policy directions. Councils are increasingly guided by strategic documents that sit above LEPs and DCPs, including Local Strategic Planning Statements and Regional Plans (NSW Department of Planning).
Site suitability risk relates to whether the physical characteristics of the land can genuinely support the development. This includes access, servicing, constraints, surrounding land uses, cumulative impacts, and long-term functionality, not just minimum lot sizes or setbacks.
Policy transition risk is becoming more common across NSW. Planning controls evolve, and applications lodged during periods of policy change can be assessed through a more cautious lens, particularly where Councils are responding to housing supply reforms, climate adaptation objectives, or infrastructure constraints.
Neighbour and objection risk reflects the reality that social impact matters. High objection volumes do not automatically trigger refusal, but they influence assessment rigor, political sensitivity, and often result in more restrictive conditions or deferrals.
Why Compliance Alone Does Not Eliminate Risk
A common misconception is that if a proposal complies numerically with DCP controls, approval should follow. In reality, compliance does not override strategic inconsistency or poor site response.
NSW planning law explicitly allows consent authorities to weigh merit, context, and outcomes. A compliant building envelope can still be refused if it produces unreasonable impacts or undermines the planning objectives of the area (Land and Environment Court of NSW).
This is why developments that look perfect on paper sometimes fail, while others with variations succeed because they are better justified and strategically aligned.
How Early Planning Advice Reduces Development Risk
Risk is not eliminated through reports alone. It is reduced through informed decision making before design paths are locked in.
Early planning advice identifies constraints, flags approval sensitivities, and tests whether a proposal aligns with how Council is likely to assess it in practice. This allows design teams and clients to adjust scale, form, staging, or land use before significant costs are incurred.
From a planning perspective, risk mitigation often means designing with policy intent rather than against it, addressing issues proactively rather than defensively, and framing applications around outcomes Councils are required to prioritise.
This approach aligns with contemporary planning practice across NSW, where assessment is increasingly outcomes focused rather than checklist driven (NSW Department of Planning guidance).
Development Risk Is a Strategic Issue, Not a Technical One
The most successful projects are rarely the most complex. They are the ones where risk was understood early and managed deliberately.
Development risk is not just about whether something can be approved, but how difficult, expensive, or delayed that approval process may become.
Treating planning risk as a strategic consideration rather than a last-minute technical hurdle is what separates smooth approvals from drawn out and frustrating processes.
PlanBE works at the point where planning risk becomes opportunity. By identifying both visible and less obvious risks early, we shape projects in ways that align with policy intent and significantly improve application outcomes.
